(February 23, 2016 at 3:56 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote:(February 22, 2016 at 7:01 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Did you just forget what you posted?
You clearly stated "all the evidence from arcaeology from before then suggests you were ancient by 40", yet you backpedal and acknowledge that 4.7 of ancient Romans did indeed live to be 65 and older (which makes your figure of "40" an average figure, which was my point); what does that make them? really really ancient?
Also I see you left out major factor in why the life expectancy was so low in ancient times; war.
You want to continue lying, stop fucking talking to me. You want to have a serious discussion, stop fucking lying. Until you choose option B you're going on ignore, because I fucking despise mendacious idiots like you.
YOU addressed me bruh!
What part was I lying about exactly? The part where you stated:
(February 22, 2016 at 3:00 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Back in the Roman empire you could expect to live 25 to 30 years, unless you were lucky enough to be rich and survive infancy (child mortality befor 5 was, at best 50/50). And all the evidence from arcaeology from before then suggests you were ancient by 40.*emphasis mine*
Or where you stated:
(February 22, 2016 at 6:07 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: A quick google search will actually give you historical research on the topic of life expectancy in ancient Rome (the figures in that thread's OP can be found here), based off the available evidence, the proportion of those living in Rome aged 65 or over at any period was somewhere in the region of 4.7%.*emphasis mine*
?
Typical; Atheist destroys his own argument, then gets mad and wants to ignore somebody...
Here's an idea, how about you remain quiet when grown folks are talking?
